Among their tactics is a search for an epithet against reform analogous to Sarah Palin's "death panel" characterization of an obscure passage in the Affordable Care Act.
]]>In sum, mandatory health insurance, privately paid for, for 11 millions people who can afford it least.
]]>The article says:
The word raitero is a Spanglish invention that roughly means "a person who gives rides." In fact, the raiteros are effectively agents for Select Remedy and other temp agencies, which have grown steadily since the 1990s and are approaching new heights after the recent recession. While not a household name, the Select Family of Staffing Companies, which controls Select Remedy, posted $1.8 billion in revenue last year and employs nearly 100,000 people every week — about as many as Starbucks.
Select was started in 1985. Beginning in the mid-2000s, it bought more than three dozen staffing firms, becoming a national chain. Its revenues skyrocketed from a little more than $300 million in 2002 to $1.8 billion in 2011, according to company press releases. In 2012, Staffing Industry Analysts, a research firm, ranked Select the 10th largest temp agency in America and the fourth largest in the industrial sector.
Go to the article for more details.
Allow undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States continually since before December 31, 2011 to apply for “Registered Provisional Immigrant Status” if they pay back taxes and $500 in fines, and if they have not been convicted of a felony or 3 or more misdemeanors or voted illegally. Individuals with this status can work for any employer and travel outside the country but are not eligible to receive means-tested federal public benefits.
After 10 years in Registered Provisional Immigrant Status, individuals will be eligible – pending border security measures and a clearing of existing backlogs for legal immigrants – to earn a merit-based green card if they have worked in the United States, demonstrated knowledge of the English language and paid an additional fine of $1000.
Allow eligible DREAM act applicants and certain agricultural workers to apply for green cards within five years
Regarding border security, the bill would set a goal of “90% effectiveness” – meaning the rate of apprehensions and turnbacks of potential entrants – per fiscal year in the most high-risk areas of the southern border. If that goal is not met within five years, a bipartisan “Border Commission” made up of border state governors and experts will be formed to issue new recommendations on how to achieve it.
Allocate $3 billion for increased surveillance and manpower along the country’s southern border and an additional $1.5 billion for fencing.
Include a border security “trigger” requiring that no undocumented immigrant can achieve legal “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status until strategies for border security have been submitted by the Department of Homeland Security to Congress.
Require an additional “trigger” that prevents those with “Registered Provisional Immigrant” status from becoming eligible to apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status until the Department of Homeland Security and the Comptroller General certify that border security strategies are operational and a mandatory employment verification system has been implemented.
Create a new “W” visa program to allow non-agricultural temporary workers to come to the United States to work for registered employers.
Eliminate family-based visas for siblings of United States citizens as well as the Diversity Visa program while eliminating caps on visas for certain employment-based categories.
Use a point system for a new “merit based” visa, of which 120,000 would initially be awarded per year, with a maximum cap of 250,000 annually. Points will be awarded based on criteria including education, employment and length of residence in the U.S.
Require an “enhanced E-Verify” system to prevent ineligible workers from taking jobs in the United States. Employers with more than 5,000 employees will be phased in within two years; employers with more than 500 employees will be phased in within three years.
Raise the annual cap on H1-B visas for high-skilled workers from 65,000 to 110,000, with provisions to prevent such workers from undercutting American wages. Set a maximum cap at 180,000 such visas.
]]>Do these temporary hires suppress the job market prospects for U.S. professionals. And, are temporary visas for professionals, especially in information technology, mainly a way to cycle back to home countries practical expertise in American work styles, thus enabling more overseas outsourcing?
A 2011 GAO report is the source of much that follows:
How many awarded per year:
A statutory cap of 65,000, with exemptions that cause the number to swell well above that.
Duration:
While the H-1B visa is not considered a permanent visa, H-1B workers can apply for extensions and pursue permanent residence in the United States. Initial petitions are those filed for a foreign national’s first-time employment as an H-1B worker and are valid for a period of up to 3 years. Generally, initial petitions are counted against the annual cap. Extensions—technically referred to as continuing employment petitions—may be filed to extend the initial petitions for up to an additional 3 years
Over the last decade, the top four countries of birth for approved H-1B workers were India, China, Canada, and the Philippines. Across all 10 years, about 64 percent of approved H-1B workers were born in these four countries, with the largest group from India
Employer not required to test U.S. worker supply:
Unlike some other temporary visa programs, the H-1B program does not require employers to provide evidence that they have first “tested” the U.S. labor market by trying to hire a U.S. worker.
Most new H-1B visas are awarded to foreigners already studying in the U.S.:
From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2009, the proportion of newly approved H-1B workers that were already living in the United States increased from 43 to 62 percent. Many of these workers are likely to have been on student or another visa status. In 2000, 40 percent of approved H-1B workers (initial and extensions) possessed an advanced degree (master’s, professional, or Ph.D.), which increased to 59 percent by fiscal year 2009 (see fig. 11). One reason for this increase may be the H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, which allowed for an additional 20,000 approvals each year for foreign workers holding a master’s degree or higher from an American institute of higher education.
]]> There has been an increase in the number of approved H-1B workers receiving advanced degrees from U.S. universities, as well as those who are already residing in the United States at the time of H-1B visa approval. This in turn suggests that, in general, the approved H-1B population may include more recent graduates, who are younger and more highly educated, as compared to their U.S. citizen counterparts in similar occupations. In turn, the U.S. citizen population in similar occupations may include older, more experienced workers.Three key occupations:
The three occupations with the highest number of H-1B approvals relative to the number of U.S. workers in that occupation were (1) systems analysts, programmers, and other computer-related workers;62 (2) electrical and electronics engineers; and (3) college and university educators. For example, among systems analysts, programmers, and other computer-related workers aged 18 to 50, the number of approved H-1B petitions (initial and extensions) was 10 percent of the total stock of U.S. citizen workers in private sector jobs in this occupation in calendar year 2008
Morphing a 1952 initiative for exceptional talent to towards a more general program:
The original H-visa program, established under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952, authorized visas for aliens with a residence in a foreign country that the alien had no intention of abandoning, who were of distinguished merit and ability, and were coming to the United States to perform temporary service of an exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability. However, in 1990, besides removing the foreign residence requirement, the original language was replaced with language authorizing H-1B visas for aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform services in a “specialty occupation.” A specialty occupation was defined as one that required a theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and at a minimum, a bachelor’s or higher degree in the specific specialty. This increased the pool of eligible workers to include a wider range of skill levels.
Over half (54 percent) of the workers with approved LCAs (“Labor Condition Application” or the initial H-1B application) from June 2009 through July 2010 were categorized as entry-level positions and were paid at the lowest pay grades allowed under the prevailing wage levels. This pay grade is designated for jobs needing a basic understanding of duties and the ability of the worker to perform routine tasks that require limited judgment. In comparison, 6 percent of approved applicants whose wages were reported on the LCA were paid within the top pay grade designated for workers that requires sufficient experience and a high level of independent judgment.
Transition from H-1B to permanent residence:
Since the 1990s, the law has allowed H-1B workers to pursue permanent residency in the United States and to remain in the country for an unlimited period of time while their permanent residency application is pending. At least 18% of H-1B workers apply for green cards within six years of coming to the U.S.
The role of large staffing companies:
Among the top H-1B-hiring employers—those approved for large numbers of H-1B workers—are employers that function as “staffing companies,” (i.e., employers that apply for H-1B workers but ultimately place these workers at the worksites of other employers as part of their business model, many of which also outsource work overseas).35 Some foreign-owned information technology (IT) services firms have publicly stated that their ability to provide IT services to U.S. customers depends in part on access to significant numbers of H-1B and L-1 visa workers. over the decade, less than 1 percent of all employers with approved petitions were approved to hire almost 30 percent of all H-1B workers.
One critic of H-1B visas says that “In 2012, the 10 employers receiving the largest number of H-1B visas were all in the business of outsourcing and offshoring high-tech American jobs.”
He goes on to say that there are two reasons these firms hire H-1Bs instead of Americans: 1) an H-1B worker can legally be paid less than a U.S. worker in the same occupation and locality; and 2) the H-1B worker learns the job and then rotates back to the home country and takes the work with him. That’s why the H-1B was dubbed the “Outsourcing Visa” by the former Commerce Minister of India, Kamal Nath. Rather than keeping jobs from leaving our shores, the H-1B does the opposite, by facilitating offshoring and providing employers with cheap, temporary labor – while reducing job opportunities for American high-tech workers in the process. The I-Squared Act does nothing to protect against this, while vastly expanding the size of a deeply flawed program that accelerates the offshoring of American high-tech jobs and reduces America’s future capacity to innovate.
The key findings include:
366 immigrants completed surveys, and 299 (63%) reported working in the U.S. now or at some point in their lives.
• 229 were surveyed about their experience working in New Hampshire.
• The most common reported job/industry categories were factory, cleaning, food service, farming, service, construction and retail.
• 62% of all respondents were not aware of workers’ compensation
29 respondents, or about 10% of those who have worked in the U.S., noted they had been injured at work. Common body parts affected included hands, fingers, wrists, backs, knees, feet, elbows, and abdominal regions.
The “Occupational Health Surveillance Immigrant Survey Report” of February 2013 was prepared by the Occupational Health Surveillance Program of the Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in partnership with the New Hampshire Coalition for
Occupational Safety and Health (NH COSH) and the DHHS Office of Minority Health & Refugee Affairs.
This recent study follows a 2006 study. In 2006, NH COSH interviewed 25 immigrant workers who had been injured within the past 3
years. Among this group, there was an overarching issue that workers lacked
information about workers’ compensation and that this hurt them when they tried to obtain benefits. Fifteen of the 25 workers interviewed reported that at the time of their injury they did not know that all of their medical bills were supposed to be paid by workers’ compensation. Six of the 25 people interviewed reported problems
actually getting workers’ compensation to pay medical expenses. At least one additional worker did not try to get medical benefits because he was unaware of the
system. Of the six who had problems, two workers reported that health insurance paid their bills, one worker paid from personal funds, two obtained care through a
community health clinic, and one said the bills were never paid. Four of these workers reported going without treatment at some point due to inability to pay.
The 2013 survey reported included information on the nationality (44% Asian) of the respondents and their education level:
28% of respondents completed some college level training before coming to the U.S.
32% of respondents completed some high school level education.
19% of respondents completed 8 years or less.
12% of respondents received no education.
The authors say that severe limitations on legal immigration, temporary or permanent, of these workers has been in part the cause of illegal immigration.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO have agreed in principle on reforms to temporary low skilled labor immigration including freedom to move among employers and an opportunity to apply for permanent visas. The proposed W visa will allow for a broader range of employment.
H-2A visas for agricultural workers, which run for one year and are extendable to three years, are limited in number. H-2B visas, for non-farm work, are limited to 66,000 a year. Only 5,000 EB-3 permanent visas are available.
The debate over expanding and revising legal immigration for low skilled workers is paralyzed by these following issues:
• Wage levels and employment conditions. How to determine “prevailing wages.” The MPI says there is no obvious way to reconcile or come to an consensus about methodology. Also, there is differences in positions about assuming transportation and housing costs.
• Level of effort employers must show to recruit U.S.workers
• Whether U.S. workers to work alongside temporary visa workers should be entitled to transportation and housing subsidies.
• Which federal agency should oversee these temporary workers: the Department of Labor or Homeland Security
• How to determine the appropriate number of visas. Caps, when reached, make it difficult for employers to plan. The MPI has for years recommended the creation of an independent body to set and periodically adjust the cap for visas, to overcome federal inertia.
• Freedom of temporary workers to seek employment other than with the original employer. This proposed policy is intended to deter labor standard violations by employers
• Incentives to employers who play by the rules.
• Legal remedies for temporary workers
• Better monitoring, by adding dedicated resources
• Regulating immigration intermediaries.
Issues in designing a new temporary W visa include the following:
• Creating a more nuanced range of employment, that might include some skilled labor such as in construction
• Providing a path to permanent residency. The design of this path is somewhat caught up in the issue of who will be admitted. The higher the skill level, the greater prospect policy makers believe the worker will successfully integrate with American society. Integration with American society is seen as a very desirable attribute of permanent residency.
Candidacy for permanent residency can include learning English, having a good work record, and evidence of skill development.
The poll was funded by immigration reform advocates.
The poll finds that 58% of Latino registered voters now cite immigration reform as the top priority for the Congress and President, up from 35% in November 2012. One reason is that 63% of Latino voters say they personally know someone who is an undocumented immigrant, either a member of their family or a close personal friend. Further, 39% of Latino voters say they personally know someone, or a family who has faced deportation or detention for immigration reasons, and increase of 14 points over 2011, when 25% of Latino voters said they personally knew someone who had faced deportation or detention.
The poll asked Latino voters if they knew any young immigrants who had applied for the 2012 "deferred action" program that would allow DREAM Act-eligible immigrants to live in the U.S. and attend college with temporary visas. More than one in five Latino voters (22%) knows someone who has already applied for deferred action, with 18% saying they know someone who is eligible, but not yet applied.
Background:
Latino Decisions interviewed 800 Latino registered voters via landline and mobile phone, across all 50 states, from February 15-26, 2013. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, at the preference of the respondent, and all interviewing staff was fully bilingual. The survey averaged 20 minutes in length and has an overall margin of error or +/- 3.5%. On split sample questions the margin of error is +/- 4.9%. For questions about the results, please contact Gary Segura gary.segura@latinodecisions.com
The poll was sponsored by America's Voice, National Council of La Raza, and SEIU.
The collation include the International Labor Recruitment Working Group (ILRWG), a diverse coalition that includes the AFL-CIO, AFT, the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante Inc. (CDM), Farmworker Justice, Global Workers Justice Alliance, National Guestworker Alliance, Southern Poverty Law Center and other international and national organizations.
The New York Times ran an editorial about these abuses today.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that in 2009 remittances from the United States to other countries totaled more than $48 billion, nearly 30 percent more in inflation-adjusted terms than they were in 2000. This outflow is over 10% of total worldwide remittances. According to the Economist, remittances from the U.S. make up about 15% of the total GDP of Haiti, El Salvador and Honduras. It appears that about 2% of Mexico’s GDP is remittances from the U.S.
In 2009, such remittances from the United States to other countries totaled more than $48 billion, nearly 30 percent more in inflation-adjusted terms than they were in 2000. People in Mexico receive more of the remittances sent from the United States than do residents of any other country.
CBO 2011 report excerpts:
Of the $48 billion in remittances in 20098, nearly $38 billion of that amount was personal transfers by foreign-born residents in the United States to households abroad. The rest, about $11 billion, reflected the compensation of employees who were in the United States for less than a year.
Here are excerpts from a late 2012 report by the World Bank on remittances, which includes a summary of new U.S. remittance rules effective 2/7/13.
Overview of World Bank report
Officially recorded remittance flows to developing countries are estimated to reach $406 billion in 2012, a growth of 6.5 percent over the previous year. These flows are expected to rise 8% in 2013 and 10% in 2014 to reach $534 billion in 2015.
Remittance costs are still too high, averaging 7.5% in top 20 remittance corridors; the worldwide average cost is about 9%.
US Remittance Transfer Rule, to be implemented in February 2013, will increase transparency for consumers and thereby market competition.
Facts about remittance flows
Officially recorded remittances to developing countries are expected to reach $406 billion in 2012, up by 6.5% from $381 billion in 2011(figure 1 and table 1). The true size of remittance flows, including unrecorded flows through formal and informal channels, is believed to be significantly larger. Compared to private capital flows, remittance flows have shown remarkable resilience since the global financial crisis, registering only a modest fall in 2009, followed by a rapid recovery. The size of remittance flows to developing countries is now more than three times that of official development assistance.
The top recipients of remittances in 2012 are India ($70 billion), China ($66 billion), the Philippines ($24 billion), Mexico ($24 billion), and Nigeria ($21 billion).
]]> Cost of remittancesThe global average remittance price (i.e., average based on all countries for which price data is available) has declined over the same period from 9.81% in 2008 to 8.96% in the third quarter of 2012. Russia is, by far, the cheapest source country with a weighted average remittance cost of 2%. In many large remittance source countries such as the GCC, the US and the UK, the average cost is around 5%.
New February 7 2013 remittance regulations
Remittance transfer providers are generally subject to State laws and are required to register with the US Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, but are not uniformly covered by Federal consumer protection laws. The new remittance rule aims to implement the consumer protections created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act for certain electronic transfers to foreign countries. The new remittance rule, to go into effect on February 7, 2013.
The European Union (EU) has a broadly comparable rule to the US remittance rule, the Payment Service Directive (PSD) implemented in 2009. However, the PSD is primarily limited to transfers in EU member currencies and to intra-EU remittance transfers, although some countries (e.g. Italy) have extended the law to transactions to non-EU countries. The European Commission is studying the impact of the law on competition and entry barriers, and the need and feasibility of extending the law to payments in all currencies and international payments.
The new U.S. regulation is expected to increase transparency in pricing, competition and innovation in the remittance market not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world.
The new remittance rule has three key elements: 14 (a) A remittance transfer provider needs to provide a the sender with a disclosure of key transaction information, such as exchange rate, taxes and fees imposed and the total amount to be collected by the recipient, before and at the time of payment. The final receipt should also contain information on the name and contact details of the recipient, the date the fund is available for collection and the rights of the sender regarding cancellation and refund and error resolutions. (b) The second key component of the law relates to sender’s cancellation and refund right. It allows senders to cancel the transfer within 30 minutes of making the payment and for recurring payments, such as pre-authorized payments, at least three business days before the scheduled date of transfer. (c) The third component of the law relates to error investigation and remedy. A remittance transfer provider is required to investigate and remedy errors arising from an incorrect amount paid by the sender, computational error, and incorrect amount received by the designated recipient; and also errors arising from late delivery, deposit to a wrong account and certain fraudulent pick-up of the fund. A remittance transfer provider is responsible for errors committed by its agents.
The law provides for some exceptions. For example, under certain circumstances, remittance transfer providers are allowed to disclose an estimate, instead of the exact value, of the amount to be received by the recipient.
This sweeping rule will have immense implications for consumers and remittance service providers. It benefits senders by increasing transparency and certainty in the market. It reduces deceptive pricing and enables senders to shop for cheaper deals. Therefore, it may increase competition, potentially reducing remittance costs in the long-run.
In the short-run, however, it is likely to increase costs to remittance transfer providers for maintaining up-to-date information on exchange and tax rates of receiving countries and fees charged by third parties. The error resolution requirement may also expose remittance transfer providers to risks arising from certain fraudulent pick-ups. The cost can be significant for large sized transfers and since it may expose RSPs to litigations. Remittance dispensing agents may, as a result, resort to strict identification requirement, not always good for the poor who may lack access to these documents. Cancellation and refund rights may force remittance transfer providers to delay transfer until the cancellation period expires.
“There are two different lenses through which to consider the Republican perspective. First, most incumbent Republicans will not have a strong incentive to vote for an immigration bill containing a path to citizenship if a significant Hispanic population appears to be lacking in their districts. In fact, many conservatives may be far more concerned about primary challengers than Hispanic backlash.
On the other hand, the Republican Party as a whole has a tremendous opportunity to turn districts in their favor. If they can redefine themselves to the Hispanic population, starting with comprehensive immigration reform, they will be doing more than pouring water on the DCCC’s gunpowder—they will be stealing it for themselves.”
Two very recent studies from US Davis and US Sacramento examine the impact of shorter supplies of low wage farm workers from Mexico.
A new study from the University of California at Davis reports on shifts in agriculture in Mexico that may be affecting the supply of Mexican farm workers in the United States.
Mexican food distribution is increasing through large retailers, such as Walmart. These large merchandisers have “strict quality, quantity and timing standards” that small family farms cannot easily meet. This is leading to more industrial farm production.
Supermarkets think cross-border, not locally. Thus Californian food will be sold in Mexican stores in one season, and Mexican food in Californian stores in another season.
The net effect of these and other changes is to tighten the supply of Mexican low wage farm labor to work in either Mexico or the U.S. (Mexico now imports farm labor from Guatemala.)
MPI reports that farm labor costs in the U.S. are rising. When the farm unions rose in California (think Cesar Chaves) in the 1960s, farm worker wages rose by 40%. If farm wages increase significantly, the MPI predicts more mechanization (which is already picking a lot of wine grapes) and shift towards importing farm produce that cannot be easily mechanize.
A study from the University of California in Sacramento (“The End of Farm Labor Abundance”) says that “New data from the Mexico National Rural Household Survey reveal that the same shift out of farm work that characterized U.S. farm labor history is well underway in Mexico. Meanwhile, the demand for farm and non-farm workers in Mexico is rising, and a combination of recession and border enforcement has discouraged new Mexico-to-U.S. migration. The decline in foreign farm labor supply to the United States has far-reaching implications for farm production, immigration policy, and rural poverty in California and other labor-intensive agricultural regions.”
The UC Davis study (see the powerpoint here) says that farm productivity in Mexico has risen by 300% since 2003, leading to a 25% decline in the workforce along more production.
The report quotes Passel of The Pew Hispanic Center: “The supply of Mexican labor available to work in the United States has fallen due to a sharp decrease in Mexico’s total fertility rate and employment growth in Mexico.”
What happens when mechanization comes into California farms? Fewer low skilled workers, more high skilled workers, and hard from low skilled workers to transition up.
Item: Been here a long time. In 2010, nearly two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants had lived in the U.S. for at least a decade.
Item: Many mixed marriages with one citizen adult. Mine million people lived in “mixed-status” families in 2010.
Item: Children of unauthorized immigrants are mostly born here and are U.S. citizens. Nearly half of unauthorized immigrant households (47%) consist of a couple with children. Most children of unauthorized immigrants—73% in 2008—are U.S. citizens by birth. I have seen them estimated elsewhere as 3.2 million children.
Other details:
The Pew Hispanic Center has published a number of reports on the size and characteristics of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population. The Center’s latest estimate of the number of U.S. unauthorized immigrants was 11.1 million in 2011, a number that did not significantly change from the previous two years (Passel and Cohn, 2012). Other findings from the Center, based on a number of data sources, include:
Trends in unauthorized immigration: The most recent Pew Hispanic Center estimate is that 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2011. Unauthorized immigration peaked at 12.0 million in 2007, and fell since then mainly because of less immigration from Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigration (Passel and Cohn, 2012). In 2010, unauthorized immigrants from Mexico made up 58% of all unauthorized immigrants (Passel and Cohn, 2011).
Unauthorized immigration and children: In 2010, there were 1 million unauthorized immigrants under age 18 in the U.S., as well as 4.5 million U.S.-born children whose parents were unauthorized. These details are included in a report based on 2010 data that also estimates births to unauthorized immigrants; region of origin for unauthorized immigrants; state populations of unauthorized immigrants and unauthorized workers; and overall labor force participation (Passel and Cohn, 2011).
Characteristics of unauthorized immigrants: In 2010, nearly two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants had lived in the U.S. for at least a decade and nearly half (46%) were parents of minor children. This Census Bureau data-based report also includes data comparing the length of U.S. residence for unauthorized immigrants in 2000, 2005 and 2010. It estimates that 9 million people lived in “mixed-status” families (Taylor et al. , 2011).
Migration from Mexico: Immigration from Mexico has declined since 2007, largely because of the first decrease in unauthorized immigration in at least two decades. This report includes Mexican data about the characteristics, experience and future intentions of Mexican migrants handed over to Mexican authorities by U.S. law enforcement agencies; and U.S. data on border enforcement as well as characteristics of Mexican-born immigrants in the U.S. (Passel, Cohn and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012).
Unauthorized immigrant worker characteristics: Unauthorized immigrants make up 25% of farm workers (not including temporary workers), according to 2008 data in a Pew Hispanic Center report that also includes estimates of unauthorized immigrant shares of other occupations and industries. This report includes details on school enrollment by unauthorized immigrant children and by U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants; and estimates of educational attainment, income, poverty rates and health insurance status of unauthorized immigrants (Passel and Cohn, 2009).
A 2005 New York Times article estimates that undocumented workers are “generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.”
From the CBO report:
First, how many undocumented workers are there? Using data from the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS), Pew analysts found that of the approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2005, 5.4 million were adult males, 3.9 million were adult females, and 1.8 million were children under 18 years of age. An additional 3.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants were U.S. citizens, Pew estimated. The unauthorized population included 7.2 million workers, typically employed in lower-wage occupations in the agricultural, construction, and service industries.
Data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) suggest that some unauthorized immigrants use false or fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers (SSNs) to satisfy paperwork requirements during the hiring process and that employers use those numbers to withhold federal, state, and local income and payroll taxes for employees. Workers who do not qualify for SSNs can use Individual Tax Identification Numbers issued by the IRS to file tax returns, make payments, and apply for refunds. Although there are no reliable data on unauthorized immigrants’ rate of compliance with tax laws, the IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year.23 Other researchers estimate that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.
For example:
The SSA assumes that about half of unauthorized immigrants pay Social Security taxes.
Several of the states whose estimates CBO reviewed used a model developed by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) to determine state and local taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. ITEP assumes a 50 percent compliance rate for income and payroll taxes.
Researchers from the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed a 55 percent compliance rate for income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes.
As part of a larger study on migration, the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both.
]]>